Evidence of meeting #53 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was powers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
No, that's okay. I appreciate it.
As I say, I don't think any of our witnesses here are being disrespectful or anything else. These are their true feelings and their true views. I just made a few notes here on some of the thoughts that were mentioned.
Who are the “real terrorists”? I guess my question would be, to the average Canadian.... Well, we do know that there have been prosecutions of terrorists. One of the greatest terrorist acts suffered by this country was the Air India one. I have to say that the terrorists don't belong to any one group of people from any one religion. They're right across the board, and they exist around the world in every way, shape, or form.
Then we hear, of course, from more than one witness and more than one political party at the table, that CSIS is dysfunctional, that the RCMP have huge troubles, etc. I think we all have a responsibility, if we say those things, to ask whether these agencies are capable of making Canadians safe. I would say the evidence that they are capable, and that they have kept us safe, is the fact that we have not had the kind of terrible terrorist acts that they have had in Great Britain, the United States, and many countries throughout the world. It's because of these agencies that we are safe.
Have they made mistakes? Of course they have. They're made up of men and women who are human. They make mistakes. No one agency or group of people, whether they be learned judges...would ever say that they are not capable of making errors in judgment and mistakes.
I think Canadians need to know why we have the Anti-terrorism Act and these laws. We have them, as was mentioned, because the United Nations directed all of its members to look at their laws and regulations to ensure that they are made in such a way that they can prevent, or attempt to prevent, terrorist acts like 9/11, but not just restrict it to that one act. Canada took on that obligation and constructed the Anti-terrorism Act under a previous government that this party and I think all parties... I forget how the votes were, but at least the two major parties in Canada agreed with it.
But because we were unsure, and because there were some significant changes to our law, we put a sunset clause in. We revisited that. I was part of the subcommittee on anti-terrorism. I can tell you that we looked at it, we had a wholesome debate, and it was the majority view that we should maintain, with a sunset clause, these provisions.
We were talking about the Toronto 18. The comment that the police and other authorities have not used these existing provisions is evidence, I would suggest to you, of the fact that the police are very much aware, and CSIS and those other authorities are very much aware, that you only, only, only use these provisions when the Criminal Code may not apply...but that but there is sufficient evidence to have you believe that you need, in order to prevent an occurrence, the benefits of Bill C-17.
I go further to say that their authority is extremely restricted, because they may only hold a person for 24 hours, and that's if a judge is not available. If a judge is available, we constrain that judge by saying they may not detain more than 72 hours.
So my comment is that we need this legislation because it does indeed add a measure of safety to every man, woman, and child in this country.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Norlock.
We'll now move back to Madame Mourani.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Ms. Des Rosiers, and afterwards for Mr. Vernon.
Ms. Des Rosiers, exceptional powers would be granted under this act. You were referring to abuse of these powers, as others have on this panel, except perhaps Mr. Vernon. As you know, and it is not the first time we have discussed this, CSIS has acknowledged having used information obtained through torture. I would imagine this information is unreliable, because someone who is tortured will eventually say anything to escape the pain.
If this service is basing its risk analysis on intelligence obtained through torture, ethnic criteria, anything that can be found in newspapers of the Arab world or internationally, what you can see in the media, on TV and the Internet, on investigations whereby they apparently walk into people's homes to question them again based on ethnic criteria, do you not believe that there is risk not only that CSIS may abuse its power, but also that it may target the wrong people? I am not questioning the work of the RCMP, which, in my opinion, is better than that of CSIS, given that they are required to conduct real investigations involving wiretapping, for instance. In fact, we should address the issue of CSIS and the way that it operates in a broad-based way, so that their information is based on facts rather than on ethnic criteria or on biased information obtained through torture.
Should we not be looking into the operations of CSIS to ensure it performs better in the field, rather than extending this legislation?
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
It is the view of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that there is a great deal of work to be done in the area of accountability. We have seen it. Reports have consistently, systematically recommended improvements. There are two ways to look at the issue. We can say that it is important not to set aside the reports from public inquiries and insist that the recommendations be implemented as a priority, to give Canadians better value for money. Public inquiries were held. People have addressed the issue and made very specific recommendations on improvements to be made regarding powers and techniques. Obviously the Canadian Civil Liberties Association considers the implementation of these recommendations crucial.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Very well. Thank you.
Mr. Vernon, you were saying earlier on that you are in favour of this bill and believe it is necessary to grant these exceptional powers, even if it means setting aside individual rights somewhat. Is that correct? I am not mistaken?
Director, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Jewish Congress
No. You are right.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
England, Spain, France, the USSR and even the United States all have very harsh antiterrorism legislation. They even tend to set aside individual freedoms. That, however, did not prevent terrorist attacks from happening. In fact, I visited Whitemoor prison in England. I asked the warden what kind of clientele he had and he said 60% to 70% of the inmates were Muslim. The entire penitentiary is filled with so-called or real terrorists, who committed terrorist acts. It is a huge jail.
Do you not believe that at the end of the day, creating this type of legislation makes no sense? It is useless because terrorist attacks are still happening. You can fill jails up with alleged terrorists but it does not change a thing. Should we not look for the solution elsewhere? Yes, we need legislation, but legislation that respects the rights of individuals. We need to strike a balance. There may be other solutions we could consider. What other solutions could there be?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Madame Mourani. Unfortunately, we'll have to get in that question with another one, because you're well over five minutes.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the guests for appearing here this morning before our committee and addressing this serious legislation.
One thing that caught my eye or caught my ear in Mr. Mia's testimony was that he said that laws shouldn't be put in place or laws shouldn't be made on the basis of fear. I'm probably paraphrasing a little bit. Yet some of the testimony we've heard today from Madame Des Rosiers and Mr. Mia are presenting fear. They're slamming the RCMP. They're slamming CSIS. They're bringing their activities into question. They're talking about setting precedent in Canada that will set a precedent for international law.
In my mind, they're as much talking about fear as anything, and slightly twisting the facts. I think it's unfortunate, because as I always say, it's not easy being a police officer. It's tough work. The RCMP and CSIS come to work every single day and they do a good job and they try hard. We see them every day on the Hill here, and they do a darned good job.
My point and my question to Mr. Vernon is on the fact of investigative hearings. Other countries have investigative hearings. This isn't just a new concept for Canada. England, Australia, and the United States have investigative hearings. So my question is, and for the people at home who are watching, if a person refuses to answer a question, they have the ability under investigative hearings, correct?
Director, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Jewish Congress
Yes.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
That's correct. In 2004 a Supreme Court ruling recognized the constitutionality of investigative hearings. Is that correct?
Director, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Jewish Congress
Either it's charter-proof or it's not. You can't be a little bit pregnant. It's been proven to be charter-proof, yes.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
So some of our witnesses here today are questioning the constitutionality of it, they're questioning some of our most sacred institutions, like the RCMP and CSIS, and referring to the courts, yet when the Supreme Court rules the constitutionality of investigative hearings, they're still not satisfied with that.
Director, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Jewish Congress
Could I just make one comment on that?
